Search

This manuscript summarizes the results of the consensus meeting composed of hematologists and cardiologists to establish recommendations for the prevention and follow-up of cardiovascular (CV) risk in patients with chronic myeloid leukemia (CML) treated with BCR-ABL tyrosine kinase inhibitors (TKIs) from the point of view of clinical practice and from the perspective of hematology consultation.In the first medical appointment, the CV risk factors should be identified to perform the baseline risk stratification, based on the Brazilian Guideline of Dyslipidemia and Atherosclerosis Prevention Update (risk levels: very high, high, intermediate and low).Once stratified, the treatment of the CV risk factors should be administered. If the patient presents risk factors, such as hypertension, diabetes, renal disease, smoking and hypercholesterolemia, the evaluation and initial treatment may be done by the hematologist, being an option the request for evaluation by a specialist. If the patient has a history of previous CV disease, we recommend referral to a specialist. As the CV risk score is dynamic and the control of risk factors can reduce the patient risk, this expert consensus recommends that the re-evaluation of the CV risk after the baseline should be performed at 3 months, 6 months and 12 months. After this period, it should be done annually and, for specific patients, at the clinician's discretion.The evaluation of the baseline CV risk and the safe administration of a TKI allow the patient to benefit from the maximum treatment, avoiding unwanted effects.

1. Introduction Cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer are currently the leading causes of mortality worldwide and in Brazil.– The recent demographic and epidemiological transitions in Brazil have determined an increase in the population’s life expectancy, today around 76 years, and a change in the health profile, in which chronic diseases and their complications prevail. These factors pose important challenges and require the development of a health policy agenda for the management of the ongoing transitions. The technological advances, the shortage [...]

We explored the effect of discontinuing versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) on clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19 according to baseline disease severity.We randomized 659 patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 and classified them as having mild or moderate COVID-19 disease severity at hospital presentation using blood oxygen saturation and lung imaging. The primary outcome was the mean ratio of number of days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days according to disease severity.At presentation, 376 patients (57.1%) had mild and 283 (42.9%) had moderate COVID-19. In patients with mild disease, there was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital between ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 23.5 [SD 6.3] days) and continuation (mean 23.8 [SD 6.5] days), with a mean ratio of 0.98 (95% CI 0.92-1.04). However, in patients with moderate disease, there were fewer days alive and out of the hospital with ACEI/ARB discontinuation (mean 19.6 [SD 9.5] days) than continuation (mean 21.6 [SD 7.6] days), with a mean ratio of 0.90 (95% CI 0.81-1.00; P-interaction = .01). The impact of discontinuing versus continuing ACEIs/ARBs on days alive and out of hospital through 30 days differed according to baseline COVID-19 disease severity.Unlike patients with mild disease, patients with moderate disease who continued ACEIs/ARBs had more days alive and out of hospital through 30 days than those who discontinued ACEIs/ARBs. This suggests that ACEIs/ARBs should be continued for patients with moderate COVID-19 disease severity.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04364893).

This position statement from the Heart Failure Association of the European Society of Cardiology Cardio-Oncology Study Group in collaboration with the International Cardio-Oncology Society presents practical, easy-to-use and evidence-based risk stratification tools for oncologists, haemato-oncologists and cardiologists to use in their clinical practice to risk stratify oncology patients prior to receiving cancer therapies known to cause heart failure or other serious cardiovascular toxicities. Baseline risk stratification proformas are presented for oncology patients prior to receiving the following cancer therapies: anthracycline chemotherapy, HER2-targeted therapies such as trastuzumab, vascular endothelial growth factor inhibitors, second and third generation multi-targeted kinase inhibitors for chronic myeloid leukaemia targeting BCR-ABL, multiple myeloma therapies (proteasome inhibitors and immunomodulatory drugs), RAF and MEK inhibitors or androgen deprivation therapies. Applying these risk stratification proformas will allow clinicians to stratify cancer patients into low, medium, high and very high risk of cardiovascular complications prior to starting treatment, with the aim of improving personalised approaches to minimise the risk of cardiovascular toxicity from cancer therapies.

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) may increase due to upregulation in patients using angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) and angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB). Because renin-angiotensin system blockers increase levels of ACE2, a protein that facilitates coronavirus entry into cells, there is concern that these drugs could increase the risk of developing a severe and fatal form of COVID-19. The impact of discontinuing ACEI and ARBs in patients with COVID-19 remains uncertain. DESIGN BRACE CORONA is a pragmatic, multicenter, randomized, phase IV, clinical trial that aims to enroll around 500 participants at 32 sites in Brazil. Participants will be identified from an ongoing national registry of suspected and confirmed cases of COVID-19. Eligible patients using renin-angiotensin system blockers (ACEI/ARBs) with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 will be randomized to a strategy of continued ACEI/ARB treatment versus temporary discontinuation for 30 days. The primary outcome is the median days alive and out of the hospital at 30 days. Secondary outcomes include progression of COVID-19 disease, all-cause mortality, death from vascular causes, myocardial infarction, stroke, transient ischemic attack, new or worsening heart failure, myocarditis, pericarditis, arrhythmias, thromboembolic events, hypertensive crisis, respiratory failure, hemodynamic decompensation, sepsis, renal failure, troponin, B-type natriuretic peptide, N-terminal-pro hormone and D-dimer levels. Summary BRACE CORONA will evaluate whether the strategy of continued ACEI/ARB therapy compared with temporary discontinuation of these drugs impacts clinical outcomes among patients with COVID-19., Graphical abstractUnlabelled Image

Made available in DSpace on 2022-04-29T08:29:34Z (GMT). No. of bitstreams: 0 Previous issue date: 2021-06-12 Background: COVID-19 is associated with a prothrombotic state leading to adverse clinical outcomes. Whether therapeutic anticoagulation improves outcomes in patients hospitalised with COVID-19 is unknown. We aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of therapeutic versus prophylactic anticoagulation in this population. Methods: We did a pragmatic, open-label (with blinded adjudication), multicentre, randomised, controlled trial, at 31 sites in Brazil. Patients (aged ≥18 years) hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, and who had COVID-19 symptoms for up to 14 days before randomisation, were randomly assigned (1:1) to receive either therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation. Therapeutic anticoagulation was in-hospital oral rivaroxaban (20 mg or 15 mg daily) for stable patients, or initial subcutaneous enoxaparin (1 mg/kg twice per day) or intravenous unfractionated heparin (to achieve a 0·3–0·7 IU/mL anti-Xa concentration) for clinically unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban to day 30. Prophylactic anticoagulation was standard in-hospital enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin. The primary efficacy outcome was a hierarchical analysis of time to death, duration of hospitalisation, or duration of supplemental oxygen to day 30, analysed with the win ratio method (a ratio >1 reflects a better outcome in the therapeutic anticoagulation group) in the intention-to-treat population. The primary safety outcome was major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding through 30 days. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04394377) and is completed. Findings: From June 24, 2020, to Feb 26, 2021, 3331 patients were screened and 615 were randomly allocated (311 [50%] to the therapeutic anticoagulation group and 304 [50%] to the prophylactic anticoagulation group). 576 (94%) were clinically stable and 39 (6%) clinically unstable. One patient, in the therapeutic group, was lost to follow-up because of withdrawal of consent and was not included in the primary analysis. The primary efficacy outcome was not different between patients assigned therapeutic or prophylactic anticoagulation, with 28 899 (34·8%) wins in the therapeutic group and 34 288 (41·3%) in the prophylactic group (win ratio 0·86 [95% CI 0·59–1·22], p=0·40). Consistent results were seen in clinically stable and clinically unstable patients. The primary safety outcome of major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding occurred in 26 (8%) patients assigned therapeutic anticoagulation and seven (2%) assigned prophylactic anticoagulation (relative risk 3·64 [95% CI 1·61–8·27], p=0·0010). Allergic reaction to the study medication occurred in two (1%) patients in the therapeutic anticoagulation group and three (1%) in the prophylactic anticoagulation group. Interpretation: In patients hospitalised with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer concentration, in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban or enoxaparin followed by rivaroxaban to day 30 did not improve clinical outcomes and increased bleeding compared with prophylactic anticoagulation. Therefore, use of therapeutic-dose rivaroxaban, and other direct oral anticoagulants, should be avoided in these patients in the absence of an evidence-based indication for oral anticoagulation. Funding: Coalition COVID-19 Brazil, Bayer SA. Duke Clinical Research Institute Duke University Medical Center Brazilian Clinical Research Institute HCor Research Institute Hospital Samaritano Paulista Academic Research Organization Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein Instituto do Coração Universidade de São Paulo Instituto do Câncer do Estado de São Paulo Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina Universidade de São Paulo Science Valley Research Institute Hemostasis & Thrombosis Research Laboratories at Loyola University Medical Center Hospital Estadual Dr Jayme Santos Neves Hospital Cárdio Pulmonar Escola Bahiana de Medicina Universidade Federal da Bahia Hospital Vera Cruz Hospital Da Bahia Hospital Naval Marcílio Dias Hospital Santa Paula Santa Casa de Misericórdia de Votuporanga Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu Brazilian Research in Intensive Care Network BP—A Beneficência Portuguesa de São Paulo Hospital Universitário da Universidade Estadual de Londrina Hospital Felício Rocho Santa Casa de Misericórdia da Bahia–Hospital Santa Izabel Centro Universitário Faculdade de Tecnologia e Ciências Hospital Moinhos de Vento Instituto Dante Pazzanese de Cardiologia Hospital de Amor de Barretos (Pio XII) Hospital de Base de São José do Rio Preto Anesthesiology Pain and Intensive Care Department Federal University of São Paulo Instituto Socrates Guanaes Hospital Sírio Libanês Research and Education Institute International Research Center Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz Hospital das Clínicas da Faculdade de Medicina de Botucatu

Background : Observational studies have suggested a higher risk of thrombotic events in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Moreover, elevated D-dimer levels have been identified as an important prognostic marker in COVID-19 directly associated with disease severity and progression. Prophylactic anticoagulation for hospitalized COVID-19 patients might not be enough to prevent thrombotic events; therefore, therapeutic anticoagulation regimens deserve clinical investigation. Design : ACTION is an academic-led, pragmatic, multicenter, open-label, randomized, phase IV clinical trial that aims to enroll around 600 patients at 40 sites participating in the Coalition COVID-19 Brazil initiative. Eligible patients with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 with symptoms up to 14 days and elevated D-dimer levels will be randomized to a strategy of full-dose anticoagulation for 30 days with rivaroxaban 20 mg once daily (or full-dose heparin if oral administration is not feasible) versus standard of care with any approved venous thromboembolism (VTE) prophylaxis regimen during hospitalization. A confirmation of COVID-19 was mandatory for study entry, based on specific tests used in clinical practice (RT-PCR, antigen test, IgM test) collected before randomization, regardless of in the outpatient setting or not. Randomization will be stratified by clinical stability at presentation. The primary outcome is a hierarchical analysis of mortality, length of hospital stay, or duration of oxygen therapy at the end of 30 days. Secondary outcomes include the World Health Organization's 8-point ordinal scale at 30 days and the following individual efficacy outcomes: incidence of VTE, acute myocardial infarction, stroke, systemic embolism, major adverse limb events, duration of oxygen therapy, disease progression, and biomarkers. The primary safety outcomes are major or clinically relevant non-major bleeding according to the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis criteria. Summary : The ACTION trial will evaluate whether in-hospital therapeutic anticoagulation with rivaroxaban for stable patients, or enoxaparin for unstable patients, followed by rivaroxaban through 30 days compared with standard prophylactic anticoagulation improves clinical outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and elevated D-dimer levels. ClinicalTrials.gov : NCT04394377.

OBJECTIVES: This observational, cross-sectional study based aimed to test whether heart failure (HF)-disease management program (DMP) components are influencing care and clinical decision-making in Brazil. METHODS: The survey respondents were cardiologists recommended by experts in the field and invited to participate in the survey via printed form or email. The survey consisted of 29 questions addressing site demographics, public versus private infrastructure, HF baseline data of patients, clinical management of HF, performance indicators, and perceptions about HF treatment. RESULTS: Data were obtained from 98 centers (58% public and 42% private practice) distributed across Brazil. Public HF-DMPs compared to private HF-DMP were associated with a higher percentage of HF-DMP-dedicated services (79% vs 24%; OR: 12, 95% CI: 94-34), multidisciplinary HF (MHF)-DMP [84% vs 65%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-8), HF educational programs (49% vs 18%; OR: 4; 95% CI: 1-2), written instructions before hospital discharge (83% vs 76%; OR: 1; 95% CI: 0-5), rehabilitation (69% vs 39%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), monitoring (44% vs 29%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-5), guideline-directed medical therapy-HF use (94% vs 85%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15), and less B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) dosage (73% vs 88%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-9), and key performance indicators (37% vs 60%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 1-7). In comparison to non- MHF-DMP, MHF-DMP was associated with more educational initiatives (42% vs 6%; OR: 12; 95% CI: 1-97), written instructions (83% vs 68%; OR: 2: 95% CI: 1-7), rehabilitation (69% vs 17%; OR: 11; 95% CI: 3-44), monitoring (47% vs 6%; OR: 14; 95% CI: 2-115), GDMT-HF (92% vs 83%; OR: 3; 95% CI: 0-15). In addition, there were less use of BNP as a biomarker (70% vs 84%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 1-8) and key performance indicators (35% vs 51%; OR: 2; 95% CI: 91,6) in the non-MHF group. Physicians considered changing or introducing new medications mostly when patients were hospitalized or when observing worsening disease and/or symptoms. Adherence to drug treatment and non-drug treatment factors were the greatest medical problems associated with HF treatment. CONCLUSION: HF-DMPs are highly heterogeneous. New strategies for HF care should consider the present study highlights and clinical decision-making processes to improve HF patient care.

Hemostatic abnormalities and thrombotic risk associated with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) are among the most discussed topics in the management of this disease. The aim of this position paper is to provide the opinion of Brazilian experts on the thromboprophylaxis and management of thrombotic events in patients with suspected COVID-19, in the sphere of healthcare in Brazil. To do so, the Brazilian Society of Thrombosis and Hemostasis (BSTH) and the Thrombosis and Hemostasis Committee of the Brazilian Association of Hematology, Hemotherapy and Cellular Therapy (ABHH) have constituted a panel of experts to carefully review and discuss the available evidence about this topic. The data discussed in this document was reviewed by May 9, 2020. Recommendations and suggestions reflect the opinion of the panel and should be reviewed periodically as new evidence emerges.

Low molecular weight heparins (LMWH) represent depolymerized heparin prepared by various methods that exhibit differential, biochemical and pharmacological profiles. Enoxaparin is prepared by benzylation followed by alkaline depolymerization of porcine heparin. Upon the expiration of its patent, several biosimilar versions of enoxaparin have become available. Heparinox (Sodic enoxaparine; Cristália Produtos Químicos Farmacêuticos LTDA, Sao Paulo, Brazil) is a new biosimilar form of enoxaparin. We assessed the molecular weight and the biochemical profile of Heparinox and compared its properties to the original branded enoxaparin (Lovenox; Sanofi, Paris, France). Clotting profiles compared included activated clotting time, activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), and thrombin time (TT). Anti-protease assays included anti-factor Xa and anti-factor IIa activities. Thrombin generation was measured using a calibrated automated thrombogram and thrombokinetic profile included peak thrombin, lag time and area under the curve. USP potency was determined using commercially available assay kits. Molecular weight profiling was determined using high performance liquid chromatography. We determined that Heparinox and Lovenox were comparable in their molecular weight profile. Th anticoagulant profile of the branded and biosimilar version were also similar in the clot based aPTT and TT. Similarly, the anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities were comparable in the products. No differences were noted in the thrombin generation inhibitory profile of the branded and biosimilar versions of enoxaparin. Our studies suggest that Heparinox is bioequivalent to the original branded enoxaparin based upon in vitro tests however will require further in vivo studies in animal models and humans to determine their clinical bioequivalence.

Data on drug–drug interactions (DDI) of antineoplastic drugs with anticoagulants is scarce. We aim to evaluate factors associated with DDI of antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with anticoagulants resulting in modification of pharmacokinetics of these last mentioned. A literature review on DDI databases and summaries of products characteristics (SmPC) was done. Drug–drug interactions of 257 antineoplastic and supportive care drugs with direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs), warfarin, enoxaparin, or fondaparinux were categorized as no clinically significant expected DDI, potentially weak DDI, potentially clinically significant DDI, and recommendation against coadministration. Logistic regression models were performed to analyze the association between the dependent variable potentially clinically significant interaction/recommendation against coadministration and the mechanisms of DDI. Of the 1799 associations, 84.4% were absence of DDI, 3.6% potentially weak DDI, 10.2% potentially clinically relevant DDI, and 2.0% recommendation against coadministration. Warfarin has higher DDI potential than other anticoagulants. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux have fewer DDI than others. There was no difference between DOACs. Drug–drug interactions with apixaban and rivaroxaban was independently associated with the absence of CYP3A4 competition, P-glycoprotein inhibition, CYP3A4 induction, and drug class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Drug–drug interactions with dabigatran and edoxaban was associated with inhibition of P-glycoprotein and tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Warfarin, induction of CYP3A4, and inhibition of CYP2C9. Enoxaparin and fondaparinux, only tyrosine kinase inhibitors. Direct oral anticoagulants did not differ regarding DDI with antineoplastic agents. Warfarin presented more DDI than other anticoagulants. P-glycoprotein inhibition and CYP3A4 induction were independently associated with DDI of antineoplastic agents with DOACs.

Opinion statementCardiac amyloidosis is associated with a high mortality rate, a long delay between the first signs and the diagnosis but a short interval between diagnosis and death. This scenario has changed recently due to improved disease awareness among doctors and significant progress in diagnosis thanks to multimodal imaging and a multidisciplinary approach. Therefore, during the last few years, we have had access to specific therapies for those patients. Those therapies are quite different depending on the type of amyloidosis, but there has been real progress. Systemic light chain amyloidosis (AL) with cardiac involvement is the most common form of cardiac amyloidosis. The severity of heart disease dictates the prognosis in AL amyloidosis. Advances in chemotherapy and immunotherapy that suppress light chain production have improved the outcomes. These recent improvements in survival rates have enabled therapies such as implanted cardiac defibrillators and heart transplantation that were usually not indicated for patients with advanced light chain amyloid cardiomyopathy to now be applied in selected patients. For transthyretin amyloidosis (ATTR), the second most common form of amyloidosis with cardiac involvement, there is also significant progress in treatment. Until recently, we had no specific therapy for ATTR cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM), though now disease-modifying therapies are available. Therapies that stabilize transthyretin, such as tafamidis, have been shown to improve outcomes for patients with ATTR-CM. Modern treatments that stop the synthesis of TTR through gene silencing, such as patisiran and inotersen, have shown positive results for patients with TTR amyloidosis. Significant progress has been made in the treatment of amyloid cardiomyopathy, and hopefully, we will see even more progress with the spread of those treatments. We now can be optimistic about patients with this disease.

Breast cancer is the most frequently diagnosed tumor in women worldwide, with a significant impact on morbidity and mortality. Chemotherapy and hormone therapy have significantly reduced mortality; however, the adverse effects are significant. Aspirin has been incorporated into clinical practice for over 100 years at a low cost, making it particularly attractive as a potential agent in breast cancer prevention and as an adjunct treatment to endocrine therapy in the prophylaxis of cardiovascular complications. The objective of this study was to evaluate the role of aspirin in reducing the incidence of breast cancer and to evaluate the impact of its use on morbidity and mortality and reduction of cardiovascular events as adjuvant therapy during breast cancer treatment with selective estrogen receptor modulators. A systematic review was performed using the PRISMA methodology and PICO criteria, based on the MEDLINE, EMBASE and LILACS databases. The original articles of clinical trials, cohort, case-control studies and meta-analyses published from January 1998 to June 2017, were considered. Most studies showed an association between the use of selective estrogen receptor modulators and the increase in thromboembolic events. The studies suggest a protective effect of aspirin for cardiovascular events during its concomitant use with selective estrogen receptor modulators and in the prevention of breast cancer. This systematic review suggests that aspirin therapy combines the benefit of protection against cardiovascular events with the potential reduction in breast cancer risk, and that the evaluation of the benefits of the interaction of endocrine therapy with aspirin should be further investigated. Resumo O câncer de mama é o tumor mais frequentemente diagnosticado em mulheres de todo o mundo, com impacto importante na morbimortalidade. A quimioterapia e a terapia hormonal reduziram significativamente a mortalidade, mas os efeitos adversos são consideráveis. A aspirina está incorporada à prática clínica há mais de 100 anos, com baixo custo, tornando-a particularmente atraente como potencial agente na prevenção do câncer de mama e auxiliar durante o tratamento endócrino, na profilaxia de complicações cardiovasculares. Objetivou-se avaliar o papel da aspirina na redução da incidência do câncer de mama e avaliar o impacto de seu uso na morbimortalidade e na redução de eventos cardiovasculares como terapia adjuvante durante o tratamento do câncer de mama com moduladores seletivos do receptor do estrogênio. Procedeu-se à revisão sistemática utilizando-se a metodologia PRISMA e os critérios PICO, nas bases MEDLINE, EMBASE e LILACS. Foram considerados os artigos originais do tipo ensaio clínico, coorte, caso-controle e metanálises, publicados no período de janeiro de 1998 até junho de 2017. Na maioria dos estudos, houve relação entre o uso dos moduladores seletivos do receptor do estrogênio e o aumento de eventos tromboembólicos. Os estudos sugerem efeito protetor da aspirina para eventos cardiovasculares em uso concomitante aos moduladores seletivos do receptor do estrogênio e na prevenção do câncer de mama. Esta revisão sistemática sugere que o tratamento com aspirina combina o benefício da proteção contra eventos cardiovasculares com a potencial redução do risco de câncer de mama, e que a avaliação dos benefícios da interação da terapia endócrina com a aspirina deve ser melhor investigada.

Background Obesity has been associated with chronic activation of the renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system and with significant changes in cardiac performance. Objective To assess the impact of a blockade of angiotensin-II receptor type 1 (AT1receptor) on morphology and on myocardial functional performance in rats with high-fat diet- induced obesity. Methods Wistar rats (n=48) were submitted to control (2.9 kcal/g) or high-fat (3.6 kcal/g) diet for 20 weeks. After the 16thweek they were divided into four groups: Control (CO), Obese (OB), Control Losartan (CL) and Obese Losartan (OL). CL and OL received losartan (30 mg/kg/day) in drinking water for four weeks. Subsequently, body composition, systolic blood pressure (SBP) and echocardiographic variables were analyzed. Papillary muscle function was assessed at baseline with 2.50 mM calcium concentration ([Ca2+]o) and after inotropic maneuvers: post-pause potentiation (PPP), [Ca2+]oelevation, and during beta-adrenergic stimulation with isoproterenol. Analysis of the results was performed by the Two-Way ANOVA and by the appropriate comparison test. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results Although SBP change had been not maintained at the end of the experiment, obesity was associated with cardiac hypertrophy and with increased left ventricle posterior wall shortening velocity. In the study of papillary muscles in basal condition, CL showed lower developed tension maximum negative variation velocity (-dT/dt) than CO. The 60s PPP promoted lower -dT/dt and maximum developed tension (DT) in OB and CL compared with CO, and higher relative DT variation and maximum positive variation velocity (+dT/dt) in OL compared with CL and OB. Under 1.5, 2.0, and 2.5mM [Ca2+]o, the OL group showed higher -dT/dt than CL. Conclusion Losartan improves myocardial function in high-fat diet-induced obesity. (Arq Bras Cardiol. 2020;115(1):17-28).

Importance: It is unknown whether angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEIs) or angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) have a positive, neutral, or negative effect on clinical outcomes in patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Objective: To determine whether discontinuation compared with continuation of ACEIs or ARBs changed the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of 659 patients hospitalized in Brazil with mild to moderate COVID-19 who were taking ACEIs or ARBs prior to hospitalization (enrolled: April 9-June 26, 2020; final follow-up: July 26, 2020). Interventions: Discontinuation (n = 334) or continuation (n = 325) of ACEIs or ARBs. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was the number of days alive and out of the hospital through 30 days. Secondary outcomes included death, cardiovascular death, and COVID-19 progression. Results: Among 659 patients, the median age was 55.1 years (interquartile range [IQR], 46.1-65.0 years), 14.7% were aged 70 years or older, 40.4% were women, and 100% completed the trial. The median time from symptom onset to hospital admission was 6 days (IQR, 4-9 days) and 27.2% of patients had an oxygen saturation of less than 94% of room air at baseline. In terms of clinical severity, 57.1% of patients were considered mild at hospital admission and 42.9% were considered moderate. There was no significant difference in the number of days alive and out of the hospital in patients in the discontinuation group (mean, 21.9 days [SD, 8 days]) vs patients in the continuation group (mean, 22.9 days [SD, 7.1 days]) and the mean ratio was 0.95 (95% CI, 0.90-1.01). There also was no statistically significant difference in death (2.7% for the discontinuation group vs 2.8% for the continuation group; odds ratio [OR], 0.97 [95% CI, 0.38-2.52]), cardiovascular death (0.6% vs 0.3%, respectively; OR, 1.95 [95% CI, 0.19-42.12]), or COVID-19 progression (38.3% vs 32.3%; OR, 1.30 [95% CI, 0.95-1.80]). The most common adverse events were respiratory failure requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (9.6% in the discontinuation group vs 7.7% in the continuation group), shock requiring vasopressors (8.4% vs 7.1%, respectively), acute myocardial infarction (7.5% vs 4.6%), new or worsening heart failure (4.2% vs 4.9%), and acute kidney failure requiring hemodialysis (3.3% vs 2.8%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 and who were taking ACEIs or ARBs before hospital admission, there was no significant difference in the mean number of days alive and out of the hospital for those assigned to discontinue vs continue these medications. These findings do not support routinely discontinuing ACEIs or ARBs among patients hospitalized with mild to moderate COVID-19 if there is an indication for treatment. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT04364893.

Antecedentes: As antraciclinas configuram entre os agentes mais eficazes no tratamento do câncer de mama, mas seu uso é limitado por uma cardiotoxicidade dose-dependente. Estudos clínicos sugerem que o dexrazoxano poderia contribuir para a redução da toxicidade, mas não está claro se o efeito é mantido durante o tratamento adjuvante seguido por trastuzumabe. O dexrazoxano é frequentemente utilizado no contexto do câncer de mama metastático, quando são necessárias doses cumulativas mais elevadas de antraciclina, mas é frequentemente omitido quando a antraciclina é utilizada na terapia adjuvante. O objetivo deste estudo é conduzir revisão sistemática e metanálise de estudos que avaliaram a eficácia do dexrazoxano como cardioprotetor em pacientes com câncer de mama, em todos os estágios que receberam quimioterapia baseada em antraciclina, seguida ou não de trastuzumabe. Métodos: Foram realizadas revisão sistemática e metanálise. A revisão foi registrada no banco de dados PROSPERO (CRD42017077462). Realizou-se revisão sistemática de artigos relevantes publicados entre 1990 e agosto de 2017 no Cochrane Central Register de Ensaios Controlados, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Science, referências de artigos e procedimentos da ASCO. Os estudos que avaliaram insuficiência cardíaca congestiva ou evento cardíaco (alterações da função cardíaca sem sintomas cardíacos ou hospitalização por motivos cardíacos) foram incluídos como desfechos primários. Desfechos secundários foram potenciais efeitos adversos de dexrazoxano na resposta oncológica (sobrevida completa ou parcial, global e livre de progressão). Dois revisores realizaram independentemente a seleção dos estudos, a avaliação do risco de viés e a extração de dados. A metanálise foi feita usando o modelo de efeito aleatório para estimativa do efeito do tratamento. Foram avaliados viés de publicação, análise de sensibilidade e heterogeneidade, além de análises de subgrupo e metarregressão. Resultados: Nove estudos foram identificados, incluindo 1.545 pacientes. Dexrazoxano reduziu a incidência de insuficiência cardíaca (RR 0,182, IC 95%: 0,080-0,413, p < 0,0001) e eventos cardíacos (RR 0,262, IC 95%: 0,169-0,407, p < 0,0001), sem impacto na taxa de resposta (RR 0,897, IC 95%: 0,780-1,032, p=0,129), sobrevida geral (RR 1,008, IC 95%: 0,86-1,17, p=0,91) e sobrevida livre de progressão ( RR 0,97, IC 95%: 0,75-1,25, p=0,81). Realizamos análises de subgrupos de estudos que utilizaram trastuzumabe após antraciclina e estudos com exposição prévia à antraciclina. Em ambas as análises, o benefício geral do dexrazoxano foi mantido. A metarregressão, utilizando como modelo a dose média de antraciclinas nos estudos e a idade dos estudos, não demonstrou correlação significativa entre as covariáveis e o efeito global do dexrazoxano na redução de eventos cardíacos. Conclusões: Em pacientes com câncer de mama, o uso de dexrazoxano retardou e reduziu a toxicidade cardíaca induzida pela antraciclina, com ou sem trastuzumabe. O uso associado de dexrazoxano não interferiu na eficácia antitumoral das antraciclinas. Esses achados podem ter implicações significativas para a prática clínica. Background: Anthracyclines continue to rank among the most effective agents in breast cancer (BC) treatment, but its use is limited by a dose-dependent cardiotoxicity. Clinical studies have suggested that dexrazoxane could reduce this toxicity, however it is unclear whether the effect is maintained during an adjuvant treatment followed by trastuzumab. Dexrazoxane is frequently used in the metastatic setting, when higher anthracycline cumulative doses are needed, but is often omitted in adjuvancy. We aimed to analyse whether dexrazoxane is cardioprotective in all BC stages in patients receiving anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed or not by trastuzumab. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis. The review was registreded in PROSPERO database (CRD42017077462). We searched data from 1990 to August 2017 in Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Google Scholar, MEDLINE/Pubmed, LILACS, Web of Science, articles references and ASCO proceedings. Studies assessing congestive heart failure or cardiac event (cardiac function alterations without cardiac symptoms or hospitalization for cardiac reasons) as primary endpoints were included. Secondary outcomes were potential adverse effects of dexrazoxane on oncologic response (complete or partial, overall and progression free survivals). Two reviewers independently performed the studies selection, risk of bias assessment and data extraction. Meta-analysis was done using random effect model for estimation of treatment effect. Heterogeneity was assessed by visual inspection of forest plots and by Q test. Results: Nine studies were identified, including 1545 patients. Dexrazoxane reduced heart failure incidence (RR 0.182, CI 95%: 0.080-0.413, p < 0.0001) and cardiac events (RR 0.262, CI 95%:0.169-0.407, p < 0.0001) without impact on response rate or survival. In a subgroup analysis of studies using trastuzumab after anthracycline, the overall benefit and safety of dexrazoxane was maintained. Conclusions: dexrazoxane delayed and reduced anthracycline induced cardiac toxicity, with or without trastuzumab. Its use did not interfere with the anthracycline antitumoral efficacy. These findings may have significant implications for clinical practice.

Background: Chemotherapeutic agents of anthracyclines class and humanized monoclonal antibodies are effective treatments for breast cancer, however, they present a potential risk of cardiotoxicity. Several predictors have been recognized as predictors in the development of cardiac toxicity, and the evaluation of left ventricular segmental wall motion abnormalities (LVSWMA) has not been studied. Objective: To analyze prospectively the role of LVSWMA among echocardiographic parameters in the prediction of development of cardiotoxicity in breast cancer patients undergoing treatment with chemotherapy. Methods: Prospective cohort of patients diagnosed with breast cancer and in chemotherapy treatment with potential cardiotoxicity medications including doxorubicin and trastuzumab. Transthoracic echocardiograms including speckle tracking strain echocardiography were performed at standard times before, during and after the treatment to assess the presence (or lack thereof) of cardiotoxicity. Cardiotoxicity was defined by a 10% decrease in the left ventricular ejection fraction, on at least one echocardiogram. Multivariate logistic regression models were used to verify the predictors related to the occurrence of cardiotoxicity over time. Results: Of the 112 patients selected (mean age 51,3 ± 12,9 years), 18 participants (16.1%) had cardiotoxicity. In the multivariate analysis using the logistic regression model, those with LVWMA (OR = 6.25 [CI 95%: 1.03; 37.95], p < 0,05), LV systolic dimension (1.34 [CI 95%: 1.01; 1.79], p < 0,05) and global longitudinal strain by speckle tracking (1.48 [CI 95%: 1.02; 2.12], p < 0,05) were strongly associated with cardiotoxicity. Conclusion: In the present study, we showed that LVWMA, in addition to global longitudinal strains, were strong predictors of cardiotoxicity and could be useful in the risk stratification of these patients. Resumo Fundamento: Os agentes quimioterápicos da classe das antraciclinas e dos anticorpos monoclonais humanizados são tratamentos eficazes para o câncer de mama, entretanto, apresentam alto risco de cardiotoxicidade. Diversos parâmetros têm sido reconhecidos como preditores no desenvolvimento de toxicidade cardíaca, sendo que a avaliação da alteração contrátil segmentar ventricular esquerda (ACSVE) ainda não foi estudada. Objetivo: Analisar a associação entre o surgimento de ACSVE e o desenvolvimento de cardiotoxicidade em pacientes com câncer de mama em tratamento com quimioterapia. Métodos: Coorte prospectiva de pacientes diagnosticados com câncer de mama e em tratamento quimioterápico com doxorrubicina e/ou trastuzumab. Foram realizados ecocardiogramas transtorácicos antes, durante e depois do tratamento para avaliar a presença ou não de cardiotoxicidade. A cardiotoxicidade foi definida por um decréscimo de 10% na fração de ejeção do ventrículo esquerdo, em pelo menos um ecocardiograma. Modelos de regressão logística multivariada foram utilizados para verificar os fatores preditores na ocorrência de cardiotoxicidade ao longo do tempo. Resultados: Dos 112 pacientes selecionados (idade média = 51,3 ± 12,9 anos), 18 (16,1%) apresentaram cardiotoxicidade. Na análise multivariada os pacientes com ACSVE (OR = 6,25 [IC 95%: 1,03; 37,95], p < 0,05), diâmetro sistólico do VE (OR = 1,34 [IC 95%:1,01; 1,79], p < 0,05) e strain longitudinal global pela técnica de speckle tracking (OR = 1,48 [IC 95%: 1,02; 2,12], p < 0,05) foram preditores significativos e independentes na predição de cardiotoxidade. Conclusão: Mostramos que ACSVE, bem como a redução do strain longitudinal global foram preditores independentes para cardiotoxicidade, podendo ser úteis na estratificação de risco destes pacientes.

Cancer patients have a high incidence of venous thromboembolism (VTE), VTE recurrence, bleeding and reduced quality of life (1). Thrombosis is the second most common cause of death in cancer patients (2). VTE prophylaxis is not routinely recommended for all outpatients with cancer undergoing chemotherapy.